10756086 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

Ex Parte Oesterling

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2012

10756086 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/756,086 01/13/2004 Christopher L. Oesterling GP-304326 3111 60770 7590 09/26/2012 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. P.O. BOX 4390 TROY, MI 48099-4390 EXAMINER REGO, DOMINIC E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2012 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER L. OESTERLING ____________ Appeal 2010-006011 Application 10/756,086 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before STEPHEN C. SIU, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of all pending claims, 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2010-006011 Application 10/756,086 2 The Invention The invention is a system and method of initiating a vehicle data upload function at a plurality of mobile vehicles. Abstract. The Claims Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent claims. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method of initiating a vehicle data upload function at a plurality of mobile vehicles, the method comprising: monitoring a radio system broadcast channel using a satellite radio receiver in each of the plurality of mobile vehicles for a call center initiated vehicle data upload command signal sent to the plurality of mobile vehicles; and, for each of the plurality of motor vehicles, determining whether the vehicle data upload command signal corresponds to that mobile vehicle; extracting the vehicle data upload command signal from the broadcast channel based on the determination; communicating the vehicle data upload command signal between the satellite radio receiver and a telematics unit on the vehicle; and performing a vehicle data upload function using the telematics unit based on the extracted vehicle data upload command signal. App. Br. 13, Claims Appendix (emphasis added). The Rejection All pending claims are finally rejected under 35 USC § 102(e) as anticipated by Lange US Patent 6,704,564 B1, filed September 22, 2000. Ans. 3. Appeal 2010-006011 Application 10/756,086 3 Lange discloses a telecommunications or telematics device that combines wireless voice, data, and location systems, e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS) or Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS), to provide location-specific security information, productivity, and in-vehicle entertainment services to drivers and their passengers. Col. 3, ll.35-41. Examples of telematics systems include ONSTAR® (General Motors) and RESCUE® (Ford). Id. at ll.48-50. ANALYSIS Legal Principles Claim Construction “‘It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, [ ] and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Anticipation “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Appeal 2010-006011 Application 10/756,086 4 Independent Claims 1, 11, and 16 The determinative issue in this appeal is the meaning of the claim term “satellite radio receiver.” Appellant contends that Lange fails to disclose a “satellite radio receiver” as recited in the claims. App. Br. 7-8. Lange discloses a GPS receiver and a telematics or communications device. Appellant asserts that neither is a satellite radio receiver. Id. at 7. According to Appellant, a “satellite radio receiver” is “an electronic device capable of receiving and outputting an audio signal containing music, news, information and/or other such content that is broadcast by one or more satellites over a radio system broadcast channel used by the satellite(s).” Id. at 8. Examples of satellite radio broadcasts are XM™ and SIRIUS™. Id. Appellant further contends that the telematics device of Lange is not a satellite radio receiver. App. Br. 9. This is because Lange expressly states the telematics system communicates with the service center via cellular telephony. Id. Appellant gives examples including the ONSTAR® system that utilize cellular telephone communication between the vehicle and the call center. Id. Appellant states there is nothing from Lange that discloses use of satellite-based communications for the telematics devices. Id. at 10. The Examiner responds that Lange teaches in-vehicle telematics devices which typically include various vehicle inputs for receiving data relating to vehicle conditions such as engine status, wiper status, airbag status, and vehicle speed. Ans. 9-10. Such devices also include an input for receiving satellite information relating to vehicle position (e.g. GPS or GLONASS) and a data/cellular transceiver. Id. at 10. The Examiner refers also to Lennen US Patent 6,266,007 B1as teaching a system in which a receiver gets input signals from GPS and GLONASS satellites that are used Appeal 2010-006011 Application 10/756,086 5 for navigation purposes. See col.7, ll.5-22. The Examiner also refers to Kreft US Patent 6,240,368 B1 as teaching a satellite receiver for GPS or GLONASS satellite signals. See col.2, ll.27-32. From this the Examiner concludes that a GPS/GLONASS receiver is a satellite radio receiver. Ans. 10. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in unreasonably interpreting “satellite radio receiver” too broadly as reaching Lange. As the Appellant points out, the Lennen and Kreft patents do not support the Examiner’s construction. Reply Br. 2. Neither describes the disclosed device as a “satellite radio receiver.” In fact, Appellant observes that the term does not even appear in those patents. Id. More persuasive is the description of “satellite radio receiver” in Appellant’s Specification. See App. Br. 9. The Specification identifies the GPS unit 126 and the satellite radio receiver 140 as having separate functions. Spec. p.6, ll.12, 21-22. Satellite radio receiver 140 is shown in Fig. 1 as separate from GPS unit 126. According to the Specification (p.6, ll.24-26): “Satellite radio receiver 140 includes a radio receiver for receiving broadcast radio information over one or more channels. Satellite radio receiver 140 generates audio output.” (Emphasis added.) Further: “In addition to music and entertainment, traffic information, road construction information, advertisements, news and information on local events, a command signal is sent to satellite radio receiver 140. . . .” Spec. p.8, ll.4-6. In contrast: “GPS unit 126 provides, for example, longitude and latitude coordinates of the vehicle.” Id. p.6, ll.15-16. We are not persuaded that the Examiner’s interpretation of satellite radio unit is consistent with the Specification, which describes conventional Appeal 2010-006011 Application 10/756,086 6 radio broadcasts of news, music, etc. transmitted by satellite as separate from GPS information. The Specification description is thus more consistent with the conventional understanding of satellite radio as exemplified by XM™ and SIRIUS™. App. Br. 8. We conclude therefore the Examiner erred in construing “satellite radio receiver” as encompassing the GPS/GLONASS receiver in Lange. In view of our conclusion that the term “satellite radio receiver” does not reach Lange, we do not address the alternative grounds for reversal raised by Appellant. See App. Br. 10-11. Dependent Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 As these claims depend from claims 1, 11, and 16, the anticipation rejection is reversed as to them for the reasons stated above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of claims 1-20 is REVERSED. REVERSED rvb